Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religion and its effects
Religion and its effects
Religion and its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Religion and its effects
Richard Dawkins Article Richard Dawkins believes faith and religion are dangerous because they are viral and lead people to believe irrational ideas that can be perverted to discriminate against others. He is correct because religion is based on faith which is blind to reason, religion is too open to interpretation and thus too easy to pervert, and it is viral and easy to spread in its nature. Blind faith is extremely dangerous because it can lead almost anyone to believe something unwaveringly, whether it is good or bad. When coupled with the openness of religion to interpretation, faith in discriminating and harmful beliefs can lead to hard-to-negotiable conflicts. Add the ability of these belief systems to spread and a danger to society …show more content…
Conflicts that arise due to faith in different things cannot be resolved except for accepting each other’s differences (which very rarely happens in the real world). Blind faith is dangerous because it is very hard to persuade people against certain beliefs when they base their justification in irrational things like all-powerful deities. Think of Catholics that denounce science and insist on teaching things like abstinence and creationism in schools. There is almost no way to persuade them that science is true because they would denounce it saying it was all God’s design or, in the case of abstinence, that interfering with God’s design by having sex with a condom is considered a sin. Having a doctrine based in irrationality throws out all logic and reasoning that science can provide for society and is a danger since throwing out science also means throwing out necessary items like health care, vaccinations, and a basic, factual understanding of the physical world. Religion is too dependent on blind faith to benefit society, and Dawkins is right in saying religion and faith is …show more content…
Religion doctrine discusses having pleasure in converting others to one’s religion because it supposedly saves others. As well, most religions talk about an afterlife or give ‘answers’ to questions like death and unexplainable circumstances (also known as miracles). It also promises an eternal life to people that are good (read: follow their religion’s doctrines). Religion also seems to serve justice in a fail-safe way by sending those who sin to hell and those who follow doctrine to heaven. Such appealing ideas of justice and eternal life, if you just follow the rules, are very easy to become viral if done correctly, Dawkins correctly
On the one side, the vocal religious right, mainly in the US, promises Hell and damnation for those who do not believe their version of the truth. On the other side, equally extremist views, put forward by Dawkins and his ilk, further alienate the moderates. By reading the media, it would seem that there is little room for compromise between the two sides, especially when prominent politicians become involved” (Shuttleworth)
The history of opposition between science and religion has been steady for about half of a century. As early as the 1500's, science and religion have been antagonistic forces working against each other. Science was originally founded by Christians to prove that humans lived in a orderly universe (Helweg, 1997). This would help to prove that the universe was created by a orderly God who could be known. Once this was done, science was considered by the church to be useless. When people began to further investigate the realm of science, the church considered them to be heretics; working for the devil. According to Easterbrook (1...
As said by Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, "Religion and science will always clash." Science and religion are both avenues to explain how life came into existence. However, science uses evidence collected by people to explain the phenomenon while religion is usually based off a belief in a greater power which is responsible for the creation of life. The characters Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth in Nathaniel Hawthorne 's novel, The Scarlet Letter, represent religion and science, respectively, compared to the real world debate between science and religion. Roger Chillingworth is a physician who is associated with science. (ch. 9; page 107) "...made [Roger Chillingworth] extensively acquainted with the medical science of the day... Skillful men, of the medical and chirurgical profession, were of rare occurrence in the colony...They seldom... partook of the religious zeal that brought other emigrants across the Atlantic." The people of the Puritan community traveled across the Atlantic for religious reasons, and because men affiliated with medical science did not tend to practice religion, they rarely inhabited this community. Chillingworth, falling under the category of "skillful men of the medical and chirurgical profession," would not be expected to reside in this community. The narrator through emphasizes this with his rhetorical questioning, "Why, with such a rank in the learned world, had he come hither? What could he, whose sphere was in great cities, be seeking in the wilderness?" These questions demonstrate that it was so strange for Chillingworth to appear in this community because of his association with science. Perhaps, the phrase "with such rank in the learned world" could yield the narra...
If viewed from the perspective of faith, Dawkins’ argument most likely seems offensive and his conclusions, (atheists are intellectually superior to religious people), false. If viewed from an atheist perspective, however, Dawkins’ argument is completely effective, and Dawkins himself would appear witty, clever, and engaging. Some might wonder why Dawkins takes such an aggressive approach. After all wouldn’t his argument be more universal if he was less dismissive of religion or condescending toward religious people? While making these changes would probably make him a more likable speaker, Dawkins’ intent is not to appear likable, nor is it to convince religious people of the superiority of his atheism. Dawkins’ aim is to inspire his fellow atheists to make a name for themselves; to make it no longer so that the people who are best suited for political office have to lie about their beliefs to get elected. He does not concern himself with the opinions of religious people. After all, they are not his audience, not even the ones who were actually present to hear him speak. He probably does not even believe they have the capacity to grasp the point of what he is saying. Therefore, Dawkins’ rhetoric ultimately strengthens his argument because it makes his argument more compelling to his intended audience. He is somewhat of a caricature artist, making exaggerations about both religious people and atheists to make his argument more favorable to his audience. That his argument, by stressing some of the less evidence-driven, more faith based, parts of religious faith, happens to offend religious people is an unimportant side-effect. His intention is to encourage atheists to stop being pushed aside by religious people by saying, “Look how much smarter you are than them, isn’t it right you should have a greater say in
How man was created has puzzled many, and been an argument in everyone’s life. I personally have reasons why I believe the way I do, but everyone has their own opinion depending on how or where they were raised, and what values they hold dear. Richard Dawkins has given a detailed analysis of why he believes the existence of God is highly doubtful, in his short story titled “The improbability of God.” After reading through his paper I will explain why I don’t believe in his allegations, and why I believe God is real, and my answers to his justifications.
Dawkins says this “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world”. This is fundamentally the biggest criticism that dawkins aswell as I can come up with as it teaches the virtue of faith which is by definition to believe in something despite the fact that there is no proof. This is a criticism of the Koran however all religions share that same virtue. “This Book is not to be doubted.... As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” This is a quote which I like for it illustrates dawkins two biggest concerns with religion the fact that it encourages violence when taken literally and also says to never doubt the holy book. These factors can and do combine quite
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion.
Teenagers would be very intrigued by reading The God Delusion because it incites critical thinking in an articulate manner and captures the beauty of his arguments and the universe in a humorous style. The God Delusion lays out a scientific case on why there is most likely no God and why the world we be better off without religion. Richard Dawkins is able to articulate his arguments in a way that just flows off the page. He takes high level vocabulary and concepts and makes them easily comprehendible to the average reader. A prime example of this is when he explains evolution compared to creationism he uses the analogy of a sheer cliff face and creationism being equivalent to a person jumping from the bottom to the top in a single leap. Compared
Ward then brings in Dawkin’s argument who says that this is exactly the universe in which there is no God. “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless and indifference” (Dawkins). He responds saying that obviously the goal God has in mind is not to create a universe void of suffering. God gives the universe the purpose to become free, self aware sentient beings and with that comes the price of suffering and pain. If we are to realize values of truth, beauty, and goodness then that cannot be achieve without suffering. Ward then asks, is this a worthwhile goal? He responds yes, and uses physics to answer it. In physics,
"The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins was New York Times bestseller in 2006." Richard Dawkins who is an atheist holds the view that, God is the most unpleasant character and that the existence of God is a scientific question. Claiming that God created the universe is a claim that must be investigated by science. In this essay, I will demonstrate Dawkins view of God and nature which is that there is absolutely no ability for science and religion to co-exist. When we come across the signs of religion there is no scientific evidence for us to believe in them. I will demonstrate this view by discussing the God Hypothesis which opposes the idea that there exists a supernatural intelligent person who created the universe. The existence of the
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
Richard Dawkin’s selfish gene theory, portrays the idea that the higher two or more individuals are genetically related, the more logical it is for them to interact selflessly with one another. Under Dawkin’s theory, the assistance from a homosexual sibling nurturing a heterosexual sibling’s child can be supported by the selfish gene theory, because the two siblings would have similar genetics and the offspring of one sibling would as well inherit the corresponding gene from the other sibling. Together, both siblings would follow the theory and its prominent proposition of implementing actions that in final results would help the survival of their family genes. The action of taking care of the next generation accomplishes this intention. Those
Some people on this planet have bad beliefs as well. Some including domestic violence, public safety, and education (F. McGrath). In some schools if religious freedom beliefs is passed, some teachers could have a belief against gay children, they can actually deny to teach them (F. McGrath). There can be some men that believe in domestic violence and end up to beating their wives and children (F. McGrath). There are many people who believe in guns. Which is found constantly. That meaning that they can bring their guns out in public, in front of
Faith has several strengths and weaknesses when used as a basis for knowledge in religion and the natural sciences. In order to fully analyze these strengths and weaknesses and determine which of the two is more prevalent, faith, religion, and the natural sciences should be distinguished from one another. In The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary faith is defined as the “belief and trust in God” or “allegiance to duty or a person” (270), religion as “an organized system of faith and worship” (617), and science as “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method” (650). Faith may be considered a strong basis for knowledge in religion as religion is usually built around the concept of faith. However, faith may be a weak basis for knowledge in religion as certain teachings in a religion may not have a direct link to the concept of faith. Similarly, in the natural sciences, faith may also be seen as a strong basis for knowledge as a scientist has faith in the hypothesis he may be testing. Likewise, faith may be perceived as a weak basis for knowledge in the natural sciences as faith and the natural sciences tend to offer incongruous solutions to the same problem.
Religion has made people blind, dumb and deaf to the reality. They have faith without reasoning which is blind. On the contrary, it has often made people to become bigots and fanatics. Bigotry and fanaticism have led to persecution, inhuman treatment and misery in the past.